We live in an economy where paywall aggregators are successful in music and tv channels and movies. Why hasn't this been successful for online journalism? Why are there a bunch of à la carte paywalls instead?
-
-
So they don't need people who would like to read a mix of nyt, wapo, and wsj? They can each survive on just selling to their loyal tribe members?
-
The people who would want to pay money to WaPo and also pay money to WSJ must be very few - even if I want to read WSJ (or Fox News) articles out of morbid curiosity, I don't want to be be paying them for the privilege. Whereas paying WaPo feels virtuous.
-
Just let me know when I subscribe to the
@nytimes without any of my money going to the Op Ed section.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That said, I would very much prefer to be in a world that had "Spotify, but for journalism".
-
My credit card is ready and waiting
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’d argue it’s the opposite. The different outlets are replaceable. As long as there’s one that has what I am looking for no need to grab my wallet.
-
So we're 3 consumers who each perceive the market very differently. 1 sees the providers as commodity services so any will do. Another sees each as distinct and wants to consume from each a bit. And another also sees them as distinct but has strong preferences (+ive and -ive).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.